The bottom line is this: The Democratic Party needs Barack Obama more than Barack Obama needs the Democratic Party.

Say you're a super delegate. Say everything has gone perfect for Hillary from this point forward. She wins Pennsylvania by a large margin, cuts Obama's pledged delegate lead to under 100, and most importantly to her case for being the nominee destroys Obama's image to the point in which he would have a difficult time winning the GE. The idea that the Clinton's will take the super delegates into some back room at the convention and smack them around until they come out for Hillary is presupposed on the idea that the Clinton's are still the most powerful force in the Democratic Party, which clearly THEY ARE NOT.

Barack Obama has won not only more delegates, but more, states and the popular vote. More importantly for the long term prospects of the party Obama has dominated the vote under 40 (I don't know what the exact number is off hand, but I would not be surprised if he had more of this vote than every other candidate from both parties put together), has an almost monopoly on what is emerging as this nations dominant new voting block-young independents, and has raised substantially more money from substantially more people than any other candidate in history.

So once again, you're a super delegate. Despite the media's assumption of the Clinton's supernatural hold over the Democratic Party, the bottom line is Obama is the one who holds the cards. Even if you thought that Hillary had much better GE prospects than Obama, how and why would you vote against the candidate whose campaign and movement holds more resources as an institution than the Clinton's and the DNC combined. You wouldn't and they won't. Unfortunately out of some sense of loyalty or conditioned fear, they are also hesitant to push Hillary out of the race, despite her trying to destroy the candidate who WILL be the Democratic nominee. But make no mistake:when push comes to shove there is no way the party elite is going to overturn the pledged delegate count, and the future of the party over loyalty to the Clintons and trepidation over one election.

Don't let anyone fool you IT IS OVER! (Just a matter of how much damage will be done before people accept it)

support to the candidate that they feel has the best chance of being elected. I believe that is supposed to be the logic of having them be independent of the popular vote. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens.

support to the candidate who has the best chance of winning at the expense of the party's future. The logic of giving them a vote independent of the popular vote is so that they (as the party elite) can serve the long term interests of the party. Obama's campaign is not some flash in the pan thing, but an institution that has built a donor base far superior to the DNC's, and is hugely popular with every emerging voter group in the nation except Latino's (although even there he does much better with younger Latino's). Throwing that away for one election cycle would make no sense from their standpoint.

2. Hillary DOES have sway over a significant part of the party- but it's a minority.

But the MSM , grown lazy over the years, still goes to the same "inside " sources when it comes to the party. Only they could be surprised that the party is heading back to the mainstream progressives which made it great in the past.

I rather expect it would come out that BHO would get it in the second round. If not, well then, we somehow get to a solution that can win. I agree that if HRC "wins" via manipulation of the current setup it will be a shitfest, probably resulting in a muckain victory and the end of the US as we know it.

which I don't believe she will, if it goes to the convention, it is going to be a shitfest. The next several months will be spent by Hillary trying to tear Obama down rather than taking advantage of McCain's pre GE fundraising limitations to work public perception strongly into Obama's favor.

I am trying to think ahead to how the party can possible heal itself after that.

short of excommunicating one of them from the party, as long as they can raise money and keep spending it, I don't see that there is much that can be done. I would certainly hope she would get her head on straight and either go to the convention victorious because she sells the SD's on her superiority (not his inferiority) or go as a close second ready to congratulate the winner.

That does not seem probable, and Dean et al have to come up with a way to finesse either BHO's victory or some other solution without pissing off permanently half the dems in the country.

than their going to be pissed, better the shoe drops now than later. If Hillary was going to run a positive campaign from now to the convention, it would squander some opportunities to go on the offense against McCain, but wouldn't be that horrible. Of course she has no intention of doing that and going to continue Rove style attacks on Obama's credibility as long as she can.

Personally I wish some party leaders would tell her that if she doesn't stop with the negative campaigning the super's will immediately commit to Obama and end this race. Of course though, it doesn't not seem like they have the balls to actually do it.

7. While We're At It Here - Can Somebody Explain Why HRC Keeps Saying She Wins The Big States.....

and why is that important in the primaries? A primary is a contest between the Dem candidates and the people voting are picking the DEM that they want first. So Hillary might win the Dem contest in a particular state - doesn't mean that if she doesn't win the nomination that that state doesn't automatically get won by the Repug candidate in the GE.

The Dems in the state will vote for the Dem.

Now I know that there are a lot of ruffled feathers in this primary contest between the HRC and BO camps. I know that on either side that some might not vote Dem because they will feel cheated. BUT - it doesn't automatically mean that if BO loses a big state in the primary to Hillary - that he can't win that state in the GE.

The Dem turnout in all the states has been 'over the top' and 'record setting'. This country is ready for a change from a Repug administration. Whichever Dem wins the nomination will take - even the big states.

HRC's campaign putting out the word that Obama can't win the big states is just disingenuous.

I've thought the same thing and it is a very important point. Just because a candidate can win a primary in a large state, especially a traditionally dem state, doesn't mean the other candidate can't easily carry the state in the general election.

Is there any doubt that Obama can't carry California and New York? I really have become quite disillusioned with Clinton with her continual obfuscations and outright lying.

whether it is a largely dem state. And that does not matter either w/respect to your point, but it is true that if the traditional dem base is going her way and his delegates are coming from red states, then the "will of the people" - in this case "people" meaning the traditional democratic base - is being overridden by the will of some other people who may not be in position to deliver electoral votes. As you say, as long as those "big" states go his way in the GE, no big deal. But if the GOTV in one or two big states is hurt by his getting the nod via the "other" states, there is exposure.

Put simply: If dems in Ohio, New York, California, (Pennsylvania?) etc. support Hillary now, then we could hope they'd be able to overwhelm the reps in their state and deliver electoral votes. His one "big" state - Illinois - is likely in our column even if she's the candidate.

Several of Obama's wins seem less likely to do that, both because they have fewer EV's and many are going to go rep regardless.

17. I live in SD; truth is, SD doesn't count, just like a lot of other small, very red states. it does

not make sense for the democratic party to base their choice of nominee on what we here in SD want. WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE THE DEM PREZ NOMINEE ONE SINGLE ELECTORAL VOTE IN NOVEMBER, so why *should* they care what we think? yes, O has a slight overall lead, but #1. dem primary voters do not represent the general population, and #2. we choose our president though a state-based electoral college, so it does indeed matter which states a candidate wins. you are correct that even if O gets the nomination he may win some of the big swing states that currently favor hillary, but the democratic party would be foolish not to take the state by state breakdown into consideration.

Ohio. Obama has won Virginia, Colorado, and Missouri. Hillary has won big states that both candidates can in all likelihood deliver. I will say that I think the one POSSIBLE exception to this is California, where I think it is somewhat conceivable that if the Hispanic pop. got behind McCain it could become a race. However I think most likely McCain is in a catch 22 on immigration in which he will have to either alienate Hispanics or the conservative base, either way crippling his chances.

The above is a map prepared by kos of www.dailykos showing conventional wisdom for the states. He purposefully showed Hillary's states in red because she has been so supportive of McCain. He colored in Nevada and Texas as red because she won the popular vote, even though Obama won the total delegates. He said Michigan and Indiana are the main toss-up states.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.